Rebuilding Forensic Science for Criminal Justice (Science and Technology Committee Report)

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Excerpts

Wednesday 11th November 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

As the first speaker who has not been a member of this committee, I commend it for the excellence of its report and the admirable analysis made by the noble Lord, Lord Mair, of its contents. I decided I ought to speak for two reasons. First, for some years, as a judge I took a particular interest in the development of forensic science. Secondly, recently retired, I served and was co-opted on to the committee that reported in 2019. I was therefore shocked to realise that nothing had been done.

I have every sympathy with this Government, because the problem goes back to the obviously mistaken decision to abolish the Forensic Science Service. It was a disastrous mistake for another reason I will come to quickly. Having said that, if we do not do something now, the person on the watch who has been told they must do something will carry the can. So I have another degree of sympathy for the Minister because, in the nature of forensic science, something will go seriously wrong, and the lack of safeguards will be blamed.

I will say why. First, the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, has made my first point about the centrality of forensic science to the perception of juries. They look at the television, and they come to court believing that forensic science will tell you the answer. Secondly, because those on television are generally reputable and honest, they trust the scientists. It is therefore critical to the justice of a trial that forensic science is reliable. Reliability depends first of all on scientific rigour—I will return to that shortly. It also rests on transparency and on the integrity of the witness giving the forensic evidence. Very importantly, it rests upon the independence of the forensic science providers.

It is critical to look back and analyse what happened in the past, as it can be easy to forget. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mair, there are cases of unconscious bias. I sat on an appeal where there was an allegation of bias against a forensic scientist; it was alleged that he was acting under pressure from his chief constable. It was extremely uncomfortable to witness, but we set aside the conviction because there was strong evidence —we never had to decide whether the chief constable had pressured him into solving something.

I do not want to see the police having any role other than that of organisation: they must be at arm’s length from the service. It is of central importance for the protection of the police and their integrity and for the protection of the criminal justice process. No doubt one has to use the police force, as in Scotland; we are where we are, and they probably have more money than anyone else, but the forensic service must be independent. That is one thing I hope the Government will take that away: it must be at arm’s length.

There is another consideration. The best experts are experts who give evidence for both sides. If you have given evidence for the Crown and for the defence, you are much more likely to be credible; people have greater confidence in you. I have witnessed a regrettable occasion where enormous pressure was brought to bear; the person fortunately refused to succumb to that pressure not to give evidence in support of the defence. This concept of being at arm’s length is therefore critical.

I hope that we will go forward with these reforms, because there is yet one further point. If we do not have a good forensic science service here, and if the money can be found, people are sometimes prepared to go to quacks and to those who do not have decent standards. I have seen cases where experts have come from America and from elsewhere and who have given evidence that was, frankly, dishonest. That is one of the risks we face in not acting now.

But there is a more positive side. In 2015, the Royal Society held a conference on forensic science that lasted a couple of days and was designed to show that the UK was world-leading in forensic science, and I believe we were. We had made enormous strides on DNA; we worked out how you explained it to juries, we were at the forefront and our experts were acknowledged across the world. What worries me is that this is another area where the lead in UK technology and its reputation for developing forensic science is lost. If people are to have trust in what we do, they want to see how the service works in practice. Even if one is not concerned about criminal justice—and I do not know anyone who is not concerned about the disastrous state of our criminal justice system and whether there is something that could be done—there is a good, sound economic reason for doing something to strengthen our economy in this important area, in which we have the potential to be worldwide leaders.

I hope that, rather than waiting, the Government will take action and start to ensure that we do justice, ensuring that we put ourselves in a position to pay for it more easily by being leaders.